User talk:Atsme/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Atsme. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

I was asked to join in with new page reviewing last November, but having scanned the tutorial I found myself scratching my head. The whole process seems to be incredibly involved and requires more understanding of WP policies than I think I have. Whenever I see a page of instructions that's longer than my arm I tend to put them aside and apply my own intuition, but I'm not sure if that's a good idea in this case. Since you've asked I will give them another look and see if my eyes don't glaze over. nagualdesign 04:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It's mostly rooting out promo articles, verifying RS, checking for copyvios, etc. Start by reviewing stubs. If you get to this point --> , try this --> ^{(and spare us the glaze)}. There's always help available if you get stuck on something Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers, and there's also a help video you can watch. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Russian interference article is hopelessly biased and yes I was threatened. But another reason I stopped editing there is because I believe there will be some new revelations that will clearly show Trump was framed. There is some supposedly leaked information out there that, if true, would completely discredit various parts of the "official" Russian interference story. Time will tell what "leaked" information is true.Phmoreno (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Phmoreno - would you be so kind as to add the text that expresses your thoughts following "would completely..."? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The "leaked" letter concerned the DNC computer hack. It sounded official, but I am beginning to think it was a fake. Time will tell.Phmoreno (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, Phmoreno - things are about to get hairy now that Congress has approved the memo for release to the public. FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has been removed "retired"^{12:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)}. Wow. With all that's happening, I'm glad my primary focus on WP is WP:WikiProject Equine and other fun things. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I just saw the McCabe thing this morning. Not sure how to take it but I wonder if that magical memo will live up to expectations or be a nothingburger. PackMecEng (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, whatever it turns out to be, there will be a flurry in MSM. I'm going to focus on other things, and allow the concrete to cure, if you know what I mean. If it's what I think it is, perhaps the WEIGHT and BALANCE of related articles will finally shift to NPOV where it should have been from the get-go. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable course of action. I just cannot seem to help myself though, keep causing trouble. Having only been here a little over a year now, I think one of the things I have learned is it turns out I am a masochist it seems. PackMecEng (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, PackMecEng, Phmoreno - "circular reporting" - media reports were used to verify the dossier. It's still breaking news; therefore editors can only sit and wait but isn't it crazy? I've heard about J. Edgar Hoover and things he did, I'm aware of Watergate...but this...wow! There's no telling where it's going to end-up as more information is brought forward. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

It's bananas actually. Also admitting that the 4 warrants/renewals were only possible because of the dossie and that the court was mislead on the facts behind the dossie. There is already speculation that if that is the case and the FISA warrants were obtained by falsifying information that anything obtained from those warrants would not be admissible. But I am no legal beagle. We will see if anything sticks though, it does sound like the case for the classic two day rule before making an article. Lucky they made the article for this memo a little while ago, before anything was released. PackMecEng (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Atsme! Some of us were talking through the new PBR tour name issue on the Built Ford Tough Series when an anonymous user kept making unsourced changes that changed the whole meaning of the article to be about the new tour name. So I requested page protection and got an admin involved for my trouble. They took over, putting full protection on the page (montanabw talked them down to semi-protection), decided the article needed its name changed and started a name change request-all before I could respond or put forth a case like you would in a resolution board. They also reverted my last edit on the Professional Bull Riders to that same probable troll's edit, so humiliating. montanabw reverted back to mine. She's a such a treasure. But anyway, can you look at the move request? Talk:Built Ford Tough Series If you don't agree, that's fine..really. No worries. btw, I keep meaning to tell you I uploaded a bunch of pictures from last year's Cheyenne Frontier Days to Commons. And I have a bunch more to upload which I found from previous ones dating back to 1997. I will let you know when those are up too. :) dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, is it just me or do Jimbo and his staff really not care all that much about our work here. Last time you brought up pay walls it was just brushed off and this time we seem to be getting some sort of song and dance rather than really listening to our needs. I find it hard to believe that it would cost millions and millions of dollars to offer access to the news sources that editors like me need and allow our readers to read the refs. What good is WP if the readers are expected to just assume that Joe Blow has added accurate information to an article if they are unable to check it out, as is now the case with the NYT, Wash Post, and the Wall Street Journal, for starters. I wonder if they have really asked the (for instance) NYT if some arrangement could be made. See [1](which may not apply at all, but it does make me wonder...) Gandydancer (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Gandy! Sam Walton (WMF), Jake (WMF), et al with The Wikipedia Library are actually making strides but your link to the NYTimes group option is a good one, and I hope you will take it to Sam. The paywall issue hasn't reached a critical stage yet (pray it doesn't), and Jimbo did say he thought my proposal might work. He now has to go through the red tape of his own bureaucracy, and considering there are still just a few paywalls we have to deal with at present, TWL can cover it for now. I'm not excited about the library card process as it requires unneccessary extra steps. I prefer a click-a-link and a login, as with Newspaper.com and then you are automatically in the system. I also think WP can probably get a really good deal if the right people pitch it to the NYT & WaPo - possibly even a swap. If you haven't already, publish that link on Jimbo's page and ping Sam or post it at his TP. Great find, Gandy! ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's too late. The discussion was archived without a response to your comment. Wikipedia states, "The ideal Wikipedia article is neutral, referenced, and encyclopedic, containing notable, verifiable knowledge." A pretty hollow promise when one considers that our Donald Trump article lists 670 references but 145, almost a quarter of them, are behind paywalls. Gandydancer (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

can you please show me the wiki rules for a gallery? Normally, a gallery is additional to the existing sections...Dronepicr (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Dronepicr - please see:

1. WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links,_images,_or_media_files
2. Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries

I don't want to discourage your contributions in any way, but please understand that WP has a vast number of photographs available for popular tourist destinations. If WP accepted all of them we would be inundated, and would quickly become a repository of images if every photog was allowed to include their photos in an article. I don't want to discourage you from contributing photographs, but the article on Bonaire is already quite full of images relevant to content. I invite you to visit Commons where there are other areas you can explore for your photographs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Follow up about Ref question... North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help you, but at the top of my talk page is a box I have made with some info. Take a look. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC) BullRangifer (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, BR - NA1000 pointed me to Citer bright and early today. . I had not noticed your banner before but I'm sure it will prove helpful to others who aren't aware of this great tool. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Re this, moving clearly misplaced !votes is uncontroversial and allowed under WP:REFACTOR, as seen here. Now nobody besides you can move their !vote without removing your comment, which, while making sense, is a little more problematic (for some) under WP:TPO. Suggest you do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Mandruss. To verify - you're saying I can delete my comment or else move it with the other editor's iVote to the propoer section? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Your comment has not been replied to, so you can simply remove it for any reason. That's uncontroversial. Someone else removing it might be objectionable to some, even if the reason is obvious and sensible, because of the slippery slope problem. I'd move the !vote (with a clear editsum) and remove your comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Happy Cyril and Methodius Day!

It wasn't easy to come up with a politically-biased and emotionally-charged Valentine's Day rant to share with collaborators on Wikipedia, so I went with "revolutionary". And who is George W. Bush? George W. Bush is a smirking frat rat son of a former head of the CIA who went on to become a speculator oil man, and from there went on to be a blood-stained executioner, and now wants to be the ruler of the world.. C. Clark Kissinger .... he was jailed for this speech August 1, 2000: [2]) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• HILLARIOUS!!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Sexy, hey?? Just cos some guy gets beaten with clubs and stones and then gets beheaded outside the Flaminian Gate, they end up getting all the attention! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Beats the hell outta going to ArbCom. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

And much quicker of course. I hear some of those "little Emperors" are quite partial to Spanish toast. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I constantly learn new things on Wikipedia: that link to Saint Lawrence led me to learn of a possible origin of the culinary phrase "well done". (I had seen a dramatization of the Tudors, in which Thomas Moore assured nice old Henry that some burnings of heretics had been well done, but this one appears to have been much earlier.) Talk about burning at the steak! And speaking of "hot", this is the first time I saw the edit notice for this talk page. Anyway, I'm partial to French toast, myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

My recollection of The Tudors ➙...watched and rewatched and rewatched again. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup, that's the series where I saw that. But honestly, he was very miscast: fine acting, but no resemblance from the neck down. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi.
I didnt understand your request for AWB —usernamekiran(talk) 19:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I use a Mac so can't use AWB (executable files) - have to use JSW (javascript). ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

erm... you forgot to ping me.
I guessed that from your request, you using mac.
But whats the relation with NPR? —usernamekiran(talk) 05:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, usernamekiran...I was thinking it would help with fixing typos for starters - maybe setup a system where during the review, I focus on N and RS, add the article to my JWB list, move to the next review. When I finish that day's reviews, I run the JWB script to check for typos. I'm still learning its capabilities and how best to apply it to routine tasks in the review process...possibly even coordinate the typo check with AfC promotions. If you have any tips or cautions to share about the process, please don't hesitate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the email. I'll just say that I'm not clear how this fits in with the op-ed. Yes, the user's block log was cited, but only by the blocking admin as far as I can tell; it's not like the response would likely have been different had non-recent blocks been invisible to non-admins. If we were to take some other route to hiding log entries, e.g. hiding bad blocks while leaving good ones in place, or hiding them faster than good ones, we'd have the possibility of a really contentious situation: what if I block you, someone else unblocks, and then later someone else asks to have it hidden as a bad block — then we'd almost be guaranteed to have disputes over whether it were a bad block or not. It's better to allow the log to stand, both for ordinary transparency (i.e. the basic principle of leaving as much as possible visible, so we can learn later what happened) and because we avoid log-related disputes if the log can't be changed. Of course, I know there are situations in which the blocking admin deems it a bad block (so presumably there wouldn't be a dispute), but in those situations, the blocking admin can always unblock with a rationale such as "I shouldn't have made this block in the first place", or if the user's already been unblocked, the blocking admin can reblock for 1 second with an explanatory rationale; as I noted at the Signpost discussion, this will be noticed by anyone who's paying attention. And finally, there's a grey area: what if the blocking admin unblocks after a while but admits no mistake? Maybe the blocking admin thought "You've learnt your lesson faster than I expected, and blocks should be preventive not punitive, so I'll unblock now, even though the block and duration were appropriate when I made them". If the admin doesn't give a really full explanation in the log, you might guess that the admin thought it was a bad block, when the admin definitely thinks that it was appropriate to block the user then and there for that reason. Nyttend (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Nyttend. It was kind of you to take the time to explain and share your thoughts. I know we have some exceptional editors who, like yourself, have volunteered for the front line and have earned the trust of the community. Here's a little food for thought: block logs tend to create preconceived notions about an editor's behavior, regardless of the fact that they may respond differently to one situation than they do another. We still tend to pigeonhole them, or perceive them as having patterned behavior, and yes, some do, but how can we consider such a process to be AGF? Admins refer to block logs when making decisions about the length of the block they intend to impose. They are basing important decisions on past events that may have been once in a lifetime occurrences. The longer one edits on WP, the more situations they're confronted with, which increases the accident risk. It may be a stretch, but one could even say that using an editor's block log against them is noncompliant with WP:PA because it states (my bold underline): The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a civil community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. Attack is the wrong word for an admin action...when you're not the editor who was blocked. I am still of the mind that we can avoid or at least slow some of the collateral damage we've been experiencing and give editor retention and morale a major boost if, under the right circumstances, the block logs are redacted (see the proposals) and not held against productive editors who, for the biggest part of their editing career have maintained good standing. Anyway, there are some enlightening comments at User:Atsme/Blocking policy proposal and User:Atsme/Block log proposals. I encourage you to participate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)  

I read the replies to your op-ed, and I think that they provide a pretty useful indication of how at least some community members will think about proposals for change. It's potentially valuable feedback in terms of assessing what kinds of proposals are likely to succeed or to fail. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree - and my plan is to list the op-ed responses as well as the two proposal responses, and get our little "project team" to review it all in an effort to come up with a really good proposal...like a "journal review" of sorts. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the friendly advice. Much appreciated. I was going to try to make a few additions to the article but the 'edit source' option does not seem to be available as it is on other articles. Is this something that will change once I have started making edits elsewhere? Birtig (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There are additional Discretionary Sanctions attached to that article, and it is locked to allow only auto-confirmed users. You might want to practice on a less "volatile" article until you learn your way around a bit. Many of our political articles require discussion on the article Talk Page (TP) first...and even there you have to be careful about what you say. Read WP:PA, WP:DISRUPTION, WP:TENDENTIOUS, and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Birtig - another tip you may find helpful...before making any changes to political articles, check the talk page (TP) of the article first - you are likely to find a discussion indicating a local or RfC consensus to add or exclude certain terms. Noncompliance with consensus may result in a block or topic ban (TB). ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

There have been a series of major edits to the article Racial views of Donald Trump which have not been sourced or even brought to the TP for discussion. [3] This is becoming disruptive and was hoping for your assistance with Birtig in bringing issues about an article to the TP as well as sourcing materials added. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

C. W. Gilmore - While I respect consensus and have been here long enough to know the proper procedures, I have also challenged the neutrality of that particular article along with several other Trump articles. The material is primarily sourced to biased news reports which require inclusion per our PAGs, not all of which have been followed. I have expressed my concerns regarding noncompliance, but I maintain faith that over time, there will be a correction in MSM's blatant sensationalistic and partisan POV that will self-correct as their readership numbers plunge. Unfortunately, sensationalism, speculation and bias comprise a substantial portion of the Trump articles published by MSM, most of which is circular reporting originating from a singular primary source that was questionable at best.

One thing that never changes in politics: it is ever-changing. In the interim, as long as there is noncompliance with NPOV, perceived or otherwise, those articles will continue to be challenged. My focus now is to prevent losing potentially good editors but I can only do so much. I think one way that will help would be to include & maintain a section titled "Prevailing consensus" at the top of the relative TPs (for all Trump-related and other highly contentious articles). Would you be so kind as to create such a section for Racial views of Donald Trump, and list the diffs & dates of the various consensus results, and include a wikilink to WP:CONSENSUS. Maybe we should create a collapsable template for inclusion as part of the TP header or banner shell, with a wikilink that can be added to the DS template we see in edit view? I would normally ask MPants at work for his help because he's my template hero but he may never recover from his disappointment in my opposing views. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

We might disagree with the methods and procedures used on Wiki, it is unwise to ignore them for any length of time. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

As I -quite clearly- explained at talk, it is not your opposing views that disappointed me, but your dishonest and game-playing method of discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

User:MPants at work, to whom are you addressing? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

He was addressing me, but I consider his accusation that I have been dishonest and have played-games a PA and it just ended this discussion for me. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest stepping back from all things Trump and build up your Wiki skills by working on some non-controversial topic like 'Tea Roses' or something. Currently it is looking like you are a single issue contributor with an agenda of pushing a point of view, this will only get you in trouble on Wiki. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

here

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 18:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. A very thoughtful and balanced presentation. I usually ignore the Signpost, but this was very worthwhile. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(+1) Good piece:)Winged Blades^Godric 16:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Ignore the nay-sayers and n'er-do-wells. You are a classy editor. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 23:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Barbara - and so are you!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, you're piling up quite a heap of warnings, entreaties, and pleas to stop plastering the article talk pages with personal disparagement and accusations of bad faith and all that kind of stuff. Please cut it out. It might be a good idea to take a breather from the politics articles for a while and go back to some of the garden variety conspiracy theories or other less fast-paced action. Please consider.

Your friend,
SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop, SPECIFICO. I have consulted Masem and he agrees the article is not compliant. The only aspersions are you and O3000 attacking me with claims of aspersions. I just want both of you to stop disrupting our article discussions as we try to work through the NPOV issues. Thank you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, that's simply ridiculous. An Admin feels there's a problem with an article but isn't editing the article? And so therefore you can make accusations against your fellow editors? What? Anyway if there were in fact identifiable problems with the article, e.g. NPOV, BLP, RS, you know you can always go to the appropriate noticeboard to air them out.

Basically, you appear to have a general problem with the way Wikipedia determines NPOV based on the mainstream and with the way we determine RS, based on the safeguards and standards we require of our sources. It would be more appropriate, and no less fruitful at least, for you to raise those site-wide meta-questions in other venues rather than repeating them on countless talk page threads. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

11:38 Feb 25 2018 your comment to Birtig was neither helpful nor was it quite accurate. In fact it was discouraging a new editor from participating in an important discussion.

11:56 Feb 25 2018 my comment to you was not an aspersion. It was somewhat of a warning to you to stop the disruption, yet you continued and even had the audacity to bring it to my TP with claims of aspersions. That only compounds the disruption. Please stop. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

A politically correct future? ^{[FBDB] Atsme📞📧} 20:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

...still approve/arrange subscriptions to the BMJ? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 19:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barbara (WVS) - I swapped my time at TWL to help out at OTRS, NPP and AfC. You can apply for access at TWL. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Atsme. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Beb, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The A11 content was a recent overturn of a redirect, so let's just return to a redirect. I'm going to point it to Babi (mythology) which seems to be the intent. Thank you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The best from the best!! Couldn't have come at a better time, MONGO!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by atsme (talk • contribs) 13:00, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

Miriam Makeba

For your fish adoration, a song without words with thanks --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. I found the original African version of The Lion Sleeps Tonight sung by Miriam Makeba - her range gives me goosebumps. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

We have our disagreements, and I have complaints (some rather harsh) about some of the arguments you've used. But over the past few weeks, I've really come to understand how frustrating it is to be in your position and to have to contend with the level of bullshit that seems to have become the norm in those article the past few months. I should probably have cut you a bit more slack than I did. It's not fair to expect someone to deal with that level of tendentiousness all day and still expect them to give calm, reasoned and well-considered responses to everything.

My only reservation in extending this apology is that I would just ask that you try to bear in mind that -all political views aside- I really care more about getting our articles on point than in presenting an image of the subject that agrees with my own views. If you and I come to grips over something to do with Trump, please remember that I'm not unwilling to change my mind, I just need a good reason to do it. For my part, I will do my damndest to remember that I shouldn't expect an Intelligence Squared-level response from every harried editor in controversial subjects.

In truth, I feel partially responsible for the degeneration of Trump-related articles. There was a still-severe-if-less-so level of fighting going on in those articles a year ago, but then there came a string of AE and ANI cases in which tendentious editors on the pro-Trump side were brought to task for their behavior. In each case, I supported those sanctions, and while I don't regret that, I am looking back now and seeing that the presence of a sizeable pro-Trump 'bloc' as it were served as a damper on the level of tendentiousness engaged in by the anti-Trump set. With a handful of the most prolific right-wing editors now missing from that topic, the care and thoughtfulness of the left has degenerated to the point where I'm unwilling to even involve myself in those articles any more.

I've noticed that many of the more thoughtful editors in politics, like Masem, MelanieN, TFD and JFG all either stay away from Trump articles or only show up from time to time to weigh in before disappearing again. I can't say as I blame them, as I'm planning on unwatching all of the Trump-related pages and washing my hands of the matter. In five years, we will be able to revisit the subject when emotions are not quite so high, and perhaps fix things at that point. I would ask that you follow me in this, though of course that's not a condition to my apology above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and thank you kindly. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Both of you, I'm so happy to see this! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Me, too!! Whistle Britches is my hero template maker!! 🤣 ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A seesaw teaches weight and balance.

Scuba diving teaches neutral buoyancy; i.e., the balance that keeps you a safe distance from the top and bottom.

What does a merry-go-round teach? The more one spins, the more likely the chance of losing all sense of weight and balance.

Spinning = 0 balance + 0 weight. Perhaps there's a message in that equation. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of "spin"...not sure how I came across this Signpost article, but I believe it somehow began right after reviewing Thomas McGuane. I may have checked the editor who added the image/was making updates to that BLP. Long story short, the Signpost article made me think of EEng. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I've never seen so many different interpretations of NPOV policy than what I've seen this year, and we're only in the 3rd month. I've never before realized there were so many people who took a journalist's opinion at face value...(qualifier) as long it agrees with their POV. It's comically entertaining...🤡🎪🎢🎡🎠. Spectators sit quietly on the sidelines, and all one hears is the crunch of 🍿🍿🍿 as 👀 👀 👀 swipe swiftly back and forth reading the comments. One can almost hear the 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 by the supporters in each camp, along with the crackle of relentless 👉🏻👉👉🏼👉🏿 👈👈🏿👈🏽👈🏻, the strong smell of bull💩, and the slicing of air from multiple finger launches 🖕🏻🖕🖕🏽👆🏿. When all is said and done, everyone goes back to their corners 🥊🥊 and a new day begins . Rinse & repeat as soon as the sun rises. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I have been a sideline sitter on that whole mess. My goodness. PackMecEng (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• The problem is bias; plain and simple. Everybody has theirs, and I can count the number of Wikipedians willing to edit against their own bias on one hand. With fingers to spare. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that most of the content noticeboards are for the most part a waste of time, with NPOVN being the worst. Editors post there hoping to get uninvolved guidance about what content does or does not comply with policy. What they get instead are endless arguments with no discernible resolution (unless the issue is overwhelmingly one-sided). If the problem is misbehavior by other editors at a page, it's better to go to a dispute resolution noticeboard if one wants an actual result. If the problem is purely one of differing opinions about content, an RfC is a better option. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

What they get instead are endless arguments with no discernible resolution (unless the issue is overwhelmingly one-sided). "unless" is a funny way of spelling "even if"...

I really did mean what I said above. Even otherwise very good editors all have POVs they just can't part with. Even editors whose POVs are "everyone/everything sucks/is awesome" will pick a stance on some disagreement and just stick to it, no matter what. It's actually a shame whenever a clear answer does come out of it, because clear answers just embolden everyone on the "right" side and fuel resentment in the few who are on the "wrong" side. This happens everywhere, but I'm fairly certain that NPOV/N is about the most pointless board, because it's destined to happen in almost every thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"Even if...": you may well be right! I think you oversimplify when you say all editors. (Well, maybe all except me! ) I think I've made my personal POV about Trump very clear, but I have multiple times argued against proposals that would portray him negatively (although that's getting harder and harder, I'll admit). But I do agree with you that we all have POVs that we do not fully recognize in ourselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

An even better example: I am 100% four-square opposed to creationism, but if one looks at the history of the Creation Museum page, I've repeatedly defended it against other editors who wanted to portray it negatively. That's going about as much as possible in the opposite direction from what I would want to do if expressing my own opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

There are some good editors, and most of them are liberal and skeptics (Sorry, Atsme!) or apolitical (in the sense of never editing politics) and skeptics. But even most of the skeptics are just as bad. I've been put on blast for saying that "practitioner of pseudoscience" is better than "brazen practitioner of obvious pseudoscience". And the thing is mostly that it varies: On one subject, an editor might be perfectly reasonable. But on another they're a hard-liner for the most popular view (at least the most popular view here). I'm an atheist and I've found myself defending a Christian POV more often than attacking it, unless you count my reverts of pro-Christian drive-by edits.

I have a rule of thumb: No-one who tells you they're neutral is. Any editor who claims to be bias free is mired in their own bias, and any editor who claims to have no opinion on a subject they regularly edit in has immutable opinions. Only about 25% of those few editors who will happily admit to having opinions but insist that they try to edit neutrally are actually any good at being objective.

It's really not much of a complaint, because it's basic human nature to be this way. But the number of truly objective people I know in real life led me to believe that WP would be full of them. Nope. Not even close. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you about that. I think that Wikipedia, as a crowd-sourced project, is almost always at its worst when covering current events having to do with politics or opinions. What's the atomic weight of barium? We've got that. What year was the Magna Carta? We've got that. How should one describe Donald Trump? Better look somewhere else. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I know, and we could fix it with policy changes, but there's no support for that because fixing it means editors don't get to push their POV onto those articles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Amen - enjoyed reading this discussion, and have come back to re-read it several times. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi.
I have been meaning to ask this question since a long time now, to many editors who have referred to me as Kiran. You are the one who did it recently, so here I go: Is it very obvious that Kiran is a person's name? I thought most of the people outside India wouldnt be aware of that. I also wanted to ask you, what do you use AWB for in relation with NPP/R? —usernamekiran(talk) 18:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I don't know if this is what Atsme would reply, but I've always assumed that when your username essentially says "username: Kiran", it's reasonable for editors to refer to you as Kiran, much as they refer to me as Trypto or Tryp, and so forth. Obviously, that's not really my name, and Kiran might or might not be your real name, but it's reasonable to assume it as a sort of Wiki-nickname. Of course, you are always free to request that editors address you in some other way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

What Tryp said about your user name, and I will be happy to call you whatever you prefer. Re:AWB...I haven't progressed much beyond what I explained before because I got sidetracked by the generate-diffs.js that I stumbled upon at User:GoldenRing#Scripts. I have been using that feature frequently. I process information slowly but once it takes hold, it takes on the characteristics of a zebra mussel colony. AWB appears to be a bit more complicated so until I've had a chance to actually apply it on a regular basis, I don't feel comfortable about commenting on it regarding its benefits for NPP. ^{I'm actually a bit nervous about using new features until I know exactly what to expect. Each of my devices responds differently which is something I learned early on after I was reprimanded by Callanecc over a rogue emoji that was added inadvertently to a section title. The cause was a dashboard glitch resulting from the smaller iPad screen which caused the dashboard to double over itself, so when I clicked a smiley, it actually produced both the smiley and the rolling eyes emoji, each ending up in different places. I'm just now learning about another new glitch in iPad Pro that duplicates the comment I'm responding to. Thankfully, Emir caught that booboo for me today. I'm almost convinced that my issues may have something to do with the 13 Russians who were recently indicted for stealing the identities of American citizens and posing as emoji activists to foul my chances at RfA. [FBDB] Atsme📞📧} 23:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

hmmm. My real names is Kiran. I dont mind people calling me by it. I was just curious about how "western people" know about it. Tryptofish's comment makes sense. Maybe they dont know that its a valid/legit name, but simply assume i want to referred that way. Actually, Kiran (given name) is sort of well-known I guess. Regarding AWB, I somehow missed your last reply even though I had received a notification. Yes, it is complicated tool; but once one gets friendly with it, it is extremely useful. But cosmetic edits is something that is frowned upon I think. When I first tried to edit with AWB all I could think of was "eh...?" I was too lazy to go through manual, so i did almost no edits (even though i used to try) till I started to tag articles with WP:MAFIA's banner. While doing it, and while nagging Primefac a lot, I learned a few things about AWB. Still no manual reading. And as I kept on using it, I started to find many more functions good for my usecases. Regarding emoticons, I use only {{smiley}} because it is parsed properly on all devices, aming few other reasons. Please feel free to ask anything about AWB. I still know very little about it, but finding an answer for you will teach me something new for sure. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I have good friends from India who taught me a little about the culture. Our families were very close, traveled together, and did all sorts of fun & crazy things. Rishi could have been a stand-up comedian but opted to be a jeweler instead. Fun times. Thank you for your offer to help with AWB. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Bear in mind that the west has the name Kiran also, as a derivative from Ciarán, often spelt as Kieren or similar, it is very common throughout the UK, USA and diaspora. I know people called Kiran who have no idea that their name sounds/is the same as the name of Indian origin. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prince of Thieves: Hi. Actually Kieran is common in UK/surrounding area. It has origin in Gaeilge language (I am very good at that language btw ). Thats why I used to think they might not realise Kiran is a valid name as well. Not just origin, but their meaning is totally different too. Kieran is anglicised version of Ciarán, both of which mean "dark haired one"; masculine version of Ciara. Where as Kiran has origin in Sanskrit (another language that I am familiar with), word-to-word literal translation is "ray"; unlike the "ray of light" as stated in the article. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes good point that. I think most people would barely notice the spelling variation at first glance if they know a variation of the name, and it's worth noting even our article says of Ciarán It is anglicised in various ways: Ciaran, Kieran, Keiran, Keiron, Keiren, Kieren, Keeran, Kyran, Kiran, Kyron, etc. so I wouldn't worry too much about people not recognising it as a 'name' name. Though I don't know how common each of these variations is. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme. I recently came up to 25 articles created. I requested the autopatrol right this morning. Alex Shih approved it and said, "From a quick look, I think most of your creations are well written, and also receives attention from other experienced editors regularly (GA works like Charmayne James alone is suffi cient in my opinion)." So thank you big time for doing a majority of the leg work in Charmayne James with me! A big hug sent your way! dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Awww...thank you, dawnleelyn!! You certainly deserve autopatrol. Good on ya!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You’re actually still calling attention to that juvenile poo-poo joke? That’s up to you; if it was me I would be hoping people would forget about it. OK, I see that Bish did reference BLP and she did remove it. However, I did not call it a BLP violation and I did not remove it. I said I had been kind of offended by it because I thought it was an ethnic slur, but I left it alone. I did caution you not to make fun of people’s names, that’s true. And yes, “blowhard” was making fun of someone’s name, although not in an ethnic way. IMO this was not out of line for a talk page and was in no way a BLP violation. On talk pages it’s not uncommon for people to describe subjects and sources in less-than-complimentary term. In fact, after you made a federal case out of it, the other editor doubled down and expanded on his criticism of the person. Anyhow, yes, I do think it is trivializing BLP to try to apply it to something like that. BLP is about serious accusations, things that can actually harm a person or their reputation. It’s not about passing low-grade insults. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Unless it's me doing it. *sigh* Double standard - it's pretty obvious. Sweeping it under the rug won't change it...but I still luvs ya!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

One is making fun of a name in a juvenile way. The other is voicing an opinion about an individual using their name as a veh‎icle for the opinion, said opinion being relevant to the discussion at hand. They are anything but equivalent and your Unless it's me doing it. *sigh* Double standard - it's pretty obvious. is itself sigh-inducing. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Make like a tree and leave, Mandruss.

^{Atsme📞📧} 22:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was make like a tree and get out of here? PackMecEng (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

^{Atsme📞📧} 19:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The leader of the free world. or Oops I let a Trump out! Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC) You can't make a heart love somebody
^{Atsme📞📧} 22:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)